| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, sk(at)zsrv(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New function pg_stat_statements_reset_query() to reset statistics of a specific query |
| Date: | 2018-11-08 13:19:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20181108131929.4hhgefwvlfdmhrl3@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-Nov-08, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Sure, but what are we going to achieve with that number? What
> information user is going to get by that? If it can help us to ensure
> that it has reset the expected number of statements, then I can see
> the clear usage, but without that, the return value doesn't seem to
> have any clear purpose. So, I don't see much value in breaking
> compatibility.
>
> Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter?
This was proposed by Sergei Kornilov in
https://postgr.es/m/3368121530260059@web21g.yandex.ru saying that "it
would be nice" to return it. Maybe he has an use case in mind? I don't
see one myself.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-11-08 13:29:34 | Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing |
| Previous Message | Surafel Temesgen | 2018-11-08 13:02:24 | Re: pg_dump multi VALUES INSERT |